Bodybuilding Forums

According to this, https://www.msu.edu/~corcora5/food/vega ... otein.html and many other publications, animal protein causes calcium imbalance. Is this even true? does it only apply to dairy products or all animal protein in general?

Go read Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories", then come back and read this pro-vegan opinion piece. The "high protein, high osteoperosis" link is bullshit. The US has the highest consumption of A LOT OF THINGS. Including carbohydrate. Particularly refined carbohydrate. High fat, moderate protein, low carb diets in combination with resistance training reverse osteoperosis in post-menopausal women to the tune of 9% a year.

The basic issue is that your body is a very complicated system, and the interactions are also complicated and not nearly as black-and-white as this anti-meat shill piece would have you believe. If you get adequate vitamin D and dietary calcium, a high-protein diet dramatically increases bone density. If you get inadequate Vitamin D and inadequate protein (EDIT: I meant to say "inadequate calcium" here), a high-protein diet results in modest loss of bone density. The main problem I have with most Vegan propaganda pieces isn't that they advocate Veganism, but that they try to say that other ways -- particularly my happy carnivore habits -- are WRONG. They can go piss up a rope if they try to do that.

--Matt B.

Yes its hard to take nutrition advice from a vegan because they are going to have ridiculously skewed opinions. While I think a vegan lifestyle can be very healthy and environmentally friendly, saying that animal protein is bad for us is beyond ridiculous when that is one of the very basic components that the human body was designed to eat from the beginning of our existence.

Like Matt said, we eat a lot of terrible things in the US, and a lot of those terrible things can have animal protein in them, like the McDonalds, Jack-in-the-Box, and Burger King I pass by every day. That doesn't mean animal protein is bad. That's like saying a vegan diet is bad because some plants are poisonous. You don't eat the poisonous plants, just like you don't eat the processed fake fast food meats.

I think vegan eating can have some benefits. I was vegetarian (ovo/lacto) for two years. The problem is when you try to separate the food from the politics, much of the pro-vegan argument falls apart on the nutritional/scientific side. Humans have carnivorous teeth, guts, and many demonstrably survive extremely well on a carnivorous diet. Humans can also do very well on a vegan diet. Humans are omnivorous, and although there are plenty on both sides who say we can survive on exclusively carnivorous or herbivorous diets, why on earth should we choose one or the other from a nutritional perspective (NOT a political/ethical one)?

I've heard most of the arguments, and both the pro-carnivore and pro-herbivore arguments hold water like a sieve. A perspective that recognizes the reality that humans can survive well on a varied diet that includes just about anything edible gets my vote.

--Matt B.

I have actually heard the opposite.That our structure is closer to a herbivore, teeth(we have many molars and small canines) the way our jaw moves(our jaw can make a circular motion) and we do not have so stong acids and enzymes in our stomach for digesting huge amonuts of protein like most carnivores have. In addition our taste as a sense is different than animals like lion.The lion can basically taste the protein and the fat. We can taste sweetness,bitterness,sourness,saltiness. Though some scientists have shown that human also have a sense of umami (meatiness, detection of amino acids) and fattiness (fatty acids).

Basically, I don't care since I am both of them. I can take down anything!

undertaker610 wrote:I have actually heard the opposite.

We're both. We have strong, pronounced canines AND molars. We have powerful enzymes in gastrointestinal tract that do a fine job with as much protein and fat that we can throw at it. Humans are extremely healthy on both all-meat and all-vegetable diets, or any part of the spectrum in between as long as we eat according to what doesn't make us sick or fat. That's my whole point: humans survive well as herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores. The Vegan intentional obtuseness on this point drives me batty!

Basically, I don't care since I am both of them. I can take down anything!

Same. Give a human some basic knowledge of what edible plants and animals exist in an area, how to appropriately shelter themselves from the predators, and they're a freakin' apex predator. We can live on the plants, we can live on the animals (hell, we can even live on insects!), but usually we do both, and nothing is safe from us.

To me, it's that facility with language and tools that makes us what we are. Being able to teach, write, read, and carry on oral traditions is an ultimate evolutionary hack that efficiently dodges the rule of survival of the fittest. I'm far less fit than a lioness, for instance, at taking down prey, but with the right tools I could out-hunt that lioness any day of the week... and even the lioness herself might be my food.

--Matt B.

We have strong, pronounced canines

Yes we have canines(a sign of our meat eating origin) but they are not a match of our ancient relatives gorillas, huge ones. But I don't think this is because of the way eating. Our brain took the place of the physical advantages like sharp teeth and enormous body strength. Living in a civilized world and working with technological inventions also served this. Human were much stronger 2500-5000 years before. Anyway, that's why weight lifting is for

We our not only ourselves omnivores but actually animals living next to us tend to be also. How many times I have seen dogs and cats eating salads, pasta and bread!I am not so sure though if those animals were designed to be a mixture or they just adapted to our habits to keep their kind alive.

Do we call an animal herbivore, carnivore or omnivore based on their structure or their actual eating habits?

undertaker610 wrote:Do we call an animal herbivore, carnivore or omnivore based on their structure or their actual eating habits?

The framing of your question doesn't work for me. Humans are structured to handle both a carnivorous and herbivorous diet. There's a reason we don't fit conveniently into a category of herbivore or carnivore... because we're both, and naturally opportunistic omnivores. Here's a table for comparison between a man, dog, and sheep:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_h ... ison4.html

Note that herbivores are divided into two categories with incredibly different digestive processes... we share almost nothing in common with the digestive process of a multi-stomach ruminant like a cow. We do have a slightly longer digestive tract than most carnivores, and molars for mastication, as well as jaws that move a little bit side-to-side... a diet of mostly meat, supplemented at various times of year depending on prey availability with berries, honey, tubers, and other plants, makes total sense. A diet including any grains makes absolutely zero evolutionary sense since we've only cultivated grains for a few thousand years.

I hate the phrase "healthy whole grains" for that reason... there's almost nothing healthy about them for a human being!

Even gorillas are not pure herbivores; without supplementation in the form of animal protein, gorillas will die on an herbivorous diet in captivity. So-called herbivorous gorillas are actually quite omnivorous, living at various times of year almost exclusively on insects.

One interesting note, though... it appears that some tribes of humans may have mastered fire as long as 1.6 million years ago. If that's the case, then humans may have been cooking their veggies for a very, very long time... and only cooking allows us to digest many cellulose-heavy plants. If the recent findings are validated, we'll have to take a long, hard look at human evolution again considering that the mastery of fire may have played a pivotal role in the ongoing evolution of our species.

Suffice to say, I think the vegans are dead wrong. I also think the "pro-carnivore" folks are dead wrong, too, if they don't consider eating the intestines, stomach, liver, and various other "less-desirable" meats with their carnivorous habit.

--Matt B.

undertaker610 wrote:How many times I have seen dogs and cats eating salads, pasta and bread!

Just because they'll eat it doesn't mean they should. My older cat will tear open a bread bag with gusto and chow down on the contents. Once she even got up on a table and chewed through plastic wrap to get at a slice of pecan pie! And cats aren't supposed to be able to taste sweet! Perhaps not coincidentally, said cat now has numerous food allergies, hyperthyroidism and massive fur loss despite thyroid medicine and ongoing oral steroid treatment. Cats are obligate carnivores. Not only do they not have the necessary enzymes to digest many plant-based fatty acids, there are compounds in onions and garlic (common pasta and salad ingredients) that can cause Heinz body anemia and death in cats. The only time cats should be eating anything plant-based is if they have an upset tummy and need help horking something back up. </soapbox>

Plenty of non-human animals have teeth and claws to defend themselves or to take prey. Gorillas may have bigger canines than we do, but I think they're there in that defensive capacity, not necessarily for eating. Our big brains make up for our vestigial teeth and claws by allowing us to develop more effective teeth and claws like hand weapons or projectile weapons. I suppose it's a synergistic system that allowed us to take more prey, in turn more protein allowing for bigger brains, which allowed for improved weaponry and tool making, which improved our ability to take more prey, and so on. What a beautiful, serendipitous feedback loop!

Here's a table for comparison between a man, dog, and sheep:

Wow, we have almost identical digestive tracks with a dog!